Meta

slacking off

i know it seems as though your hbd chick has been slacking off this past week — which, given my low scores for conscientiousness, would not have been a bad guess on your part — but i have in fact been trying to become more intelligent via osmosis (the only way it’s going to happen at this point) by hanging out at the london conference on intelligence 2014. (^_^)

don’t know if my clever plan has worked or not, but i can at least point you to the summaries of a couple of the presentations that dr. thompson has posted on his blog. yes, he has promised to put them all up there!:

As for life history I have to agree with Judith Rich Harris that it’s odd if evolution would favor someone using bad information when good information is available.

And btw, regarding my critique of Game of Thrones, I should probably confess to enjoying the show Bates Motel, which does feature plenty of violence and at least hints of weird sex. But who wouldn’t want to have weird sex with Vera Farmiga : )

Verweij et al. (2012) supports a mutal-selection balance account of the GFP, not life history. My guess is that the GFP-g-p(general psychopathology) represent the integrity of the system as a whole. Things like mutation load, exposure to toxins, stessors, parasites diminish each take a hit at the system. However, life history is a part of the story because things that are good for the system (e.g., proper nutrition) also slow life history. Del Guidice (in press) makes this point of life history and system integrity being correlated.

Jorge, just in case any other – and more open-minded – newbies are reading this, I’d like to point out that IQ typically correlates some 0.6 to work performance. There are numerous other examples of its validity.

Science is about measuring things. If you claim to be able to identify intelligent people without such measures then surely you’re the guy who’s into pseudoscience.

We should not be taking shots in the dark. It is necessary to make a comprehensive analysis of Victorian society to make sure that they really were smarter than the English people of today.
The fact that today there are fewer geniuses most popularly recognized in the early twentieth century, which today is not a strong indicator that nowadays, the population today is less smart.

We’re not in the same stage of civilization of the people at that time compared to today. Not that the number of geniuses decreased because of dysgenic factors that only recently became serious because of mass immigration and relative fertility decline of the smartest. Is that modern cultural emphasis works against the personality cult of a few minds and in favor of” all have a 5 minute of fame.” Almost always it is the cultural emphasis ostracize outliers that do not fit with the proposal of the elites of the situation.
Just as many hbders are extremely determined to interpret the biological differences by numbers and algorithms, I also see that there is a one-sided emphasis to compare societies of different periods of a country like England. Gives me the impression that reaction times are more important than a general sociological analysis of the Victorians and their modern counterparts, their habits, records of crime, education, general knowledge, social harmony etc … that are so important to fully analyze the collective behavior of a society than just or only psychometric tests.

IQ is the single best operationalization of intelligence. But there’s no one IQ. One’s IQ depends on the test. So does his “g” score.

All of these are correlated of course.

No. As a volunteer for the bgi study I’m in favor of using tests more, as long as they’re valid.

What I’m against is the seeming incapacity of people in behavioral genetics to eben understand the criticisms let alone fix their “science”.

g, as a thing, is a total myth. there is a positve manifold, but the principal component and the projection of one’s score in subtest space onto that principal component can vary a lot from one batter to another.

but personality was my target regarding psychometrics. margaret thatcher said, “there’s no such thing as society, there are only individuals and families.” the exact opposite is the truth.

heritable or not (and the “estimates” of h^2 you hear are enormously exaggerated) the psychological traits of the individual are not intrinsic, they arise via interaction between his genome and his society, both immediate and wider, just like the language he speaks.

behavioral genetics and psychometrics is a feeble attempt at ideology by the feeble minded.

I may be misunderstanding you again, but if you mean there is no g on account that it’s just a sum of subtests, then I’d say there is no general dexterity, musicality etc either becuase we can only measure these abilities in specifics. But those specifics (like pitch etc) go together and suggest and underlying general ability. And the different test seem to correlate strongly and all have validity. But no measure is perfect. We can measure a person’s height in different ways too, and it will yield slightly different results.

The exact opposite of Thatcher’s statement is that there are no individuals or families, only societies – which I as an individual object to : )

I very much doubt heritability estimates are exaggerated. They’ve been made in many different ways, and if anything have risen with the quality of measurements. There is obviously no intrinsic ability like a piece of software to be activated, all human behavior takes place in an environment (you won’t find anyone here who would believe that) but there is an intrinsic factor, genes, that can predict how that behavior will look in a certain environment.

When you can predict stuff like IQ tests can, then you can call your opponents feeble-minded : ) And ideologically we are, like you say, manifold. Some seem like regular conservatives, some libertarian, I myself am eclectic, a socially conservative but economically leftist. If you think of a general HBDers, well there is a myth for you right there. But even if we were politically similar it remains a weak argument or insinuation.

We can measure a person’s height in different ways too, and it will yield slightly different results.

huh?

iq is NOT like height. it’s like blood pressure or adiposity. both of these are as heritable as IQ or more in some studies, yet at the same time are, in one sense, 100% environmental.

that is, the phenotype arises from an interaction of genes and environment.

in the US there are these people called, in pc-language, “native americans”. one tribe is called the pima. they have the highest rate of type ii diabetes in the world in america. but some also live in mexico, and there their rate of diabetes is much lower than that of white americans and furthermore not significantly higher than that of other mexicans.

the ONLY estimates of heritability of psychological traits which aren’t totally meaningless are those in MZA studies. GCTA makes at least 8 assumptions all of which are known to be false, but its promoters claim “close enough”.

but even MZA studies must be disaggregated, because what their hereditist investigators call “apart” isn’t really apart.

when one looks at subsets of the putative MZAs which are really raised apart the heritability drops to zero for personality traits and to < .5 for IQ. and that's still for twins all growing up in the same country.

suppose one twin were raised in maidenhead and another in siberia or was raised by redlegs in barbados…

what you would find is that whatever the "potential" or innate rank this is overwhelmed by environment, just as it is for traits like blood pressure and adiposity.

Bouchard found his MZAs were correlated at .69 on the WAIS and at .64 for systolic blood pressure. bp is notoriously unreliable, much more than IQ. was this corrected for? were there multiple readings?

“iq is NOT like height. it’s like blood pressure or adiposity. both of these are as heritable as IQ or more in some studies, yet at the same time are, in one sense, 100% environmental.

that is, the phenotype arises from an interaction of genes and environment.”

This reminds me of Stephen Colbert’s motto “If at first you don’t succeed, redefine success.” There is already a terminology in place and I’m not going to have a discussion in which you define words as you please. Heritability is always measured in a broader environment. This is specifically stated in behavioral genetics. This is part of the concept of heritability.

“when one looks at subsets of the putative MZAs which are really raised apart the heritability drops to zero for personality traits and to < .5 for IQ. and that's still for twins all growing up in the same country."

Sources.

"what you would find is that whatever the "potential" or innate rank this is overwhelmed by environment, just as it is for traits like blood pressure and adiposity."

Broader environment again? There is usually a point where environment will overwhelm genetics – that's not the issue. The modern environment of the West provides too much cheap food causing overweight, but within this broader environment of cheap calories, overweight remains highly heritable.

Jorge Videla ”what you would find is that whatever the “potential” or innate rank this is overwhelmed by environment, just as it is for traits like blood pressure and adiposity.”

Genetics or potential , not measured in interactions with the environment or anything of the sort . Genetics is measured at the individual level and not collective , it is not only or especially a comparison between one individual and another . The results of intelligence tests seek to mirror the morphological characteristics ( quantitative and qualitative ) of our brain as well as all interactions outside but still biological, of course . We give scores to the results , starting from a central point of functionality in modern life . Yes , is not completely correct , but it is not totally wrong .
We respond to the environment and not vice versa . If we are what we do then there is nothing to discuss about the predominance of genetics.
Even if it were proved the supremacy of the environment , so it seems like you want , it still can not be totally , because we still depend on our genes and therefore to make the system work .
People call it the environment that I call the internal variability of responses or personalities . When we respond in first person the events that happen , we respond through our core personality. Deny the predominance of our genes , is denying ourselves, deny our own will , regardless if there are anomalous interactions as pathogens .

In addition, there results or partial results that are not measured by behavioral scientists . For example , there are types of personalities in which behavioral traits through a depressed environment , could help to give us a false impression as to our first realization that the cause for the cognitive phenotype is depressed conditions of the environment but not the fragility of behavioral phenotype , aka, personality type of the person . Some people are easily carried by the tide . The personality or character can also be a burden.
What should be centered with respect to gene – environment interactions is the marriage between them . The ” modern ” educational system is based on forced and artificial adaptation of students regarding the cognitive demands of the market . In a school that could really make a difference , the opposite should happen . Emphasis should be given on the individual and also in cognitive groups , where the society could exploit the maximum potential of individuals ( no matter what ) that is educating , adapting to individual and group demands . The school is like a big long SAT to select specific aims and reduced cognitive styles , especially the pragmatic and superficial memorizer types .

no. iq can be the z score for the individual in his immediate society, the society of namibians for example.

it’s so sad.

behavioral “geneticists” and their supporters are just stupid. it’s as simple as that.

Defining ”reared apart” poses another great difficulty for researchers of twins. Different studies have used different criteria – such as age of separation, frequency of encounters between the twins or knowledge of the other twin’s existence. Dr. Farber, in her original and synthesizing role, has turned this confusion into an advantage. She devised a mathematical index with which she could measure the degree of separateness and used this information to correct the correlations found between the I.Q. test scores of twins reared separately. So corrected, the calculated correlation between twins’ I.Q. scores fell from a modest degree of within-pair similarity (accounting for about one-half of the variance) to a much lower degree of similarity (accounting for one-fifth of the variance). In other words, on the average, the more separately the twins were reared, the greater the difference between their I.Q. scores.

”behavioral “geneticists” and their supporters are just stupid. it’s as simple as that.”

Good argument! ;) yei!-!

”NYullTIMES” ok…

I do not know who to believe . However , I always have faith in logic . Identical twins are one degree less than being clones . It is logical that in a different environment , with different interactions that even clones have different answers .
Until today the nature and nurture debate has centered on statistics and therefore comparisons between individuals seeking to prove their assumptions . But genetics already has an extremely profound effect in only a single individual , for very obvious reasons , it is humiliating to try to explain them .
I’ll repeat that environmental determinism that I’m sure you believe , is based on trying to prove the premises of Lammarck and deny Darwinism . The method to ” prove ” that daydreaming is through the school system and now through cultural Marxism.
The fact that someone has written to refute the results found in studies of behavioral heritability in twins is not a proof that we are wrong . It’s just a rebuttal , many other developments will succeed.
His enthusiasm is excessive . It is evident that the genetic factor is critical , the source of our behavior . What we should be discussing is the size of the inner plasticity and not even supposed environmental factors .
No matter the outcome of any statistical study. What matters is that the human being is your genetics, so how is life at any stage. If there are environmental factors, especially within human societies, they are constructed by human beings and are therefore not random factors without the intervention (genetics) the same. If we had not our genes and they did not mean anything other than skin color, we’d like stones, inert and fully susceptible to environmental factors.

the reality is that with some rare exceptions psychological traits are determined by the pair (genes, environment), not by genes alone (like downs syndrome) or by environment alone (a kick in the head), and the function which takes this pair to a given trait or z score or whatever cannot be written as a sum of G and E.

the model phenotype = h*G+sqrt(1-h^2)*E where h^2 is the heritability is only a linear approximation to a surface. so, like all approximations, it’s only valid within a small region about the center point of genes and environments for the population under study.

two examples of this are the failure of europeans to colonize africa in the topics…their animals and plants died, and the failure of the american billionaire ludwig’s pulp farm in brazil. he selected a fast growing tree from asia. it didn’t grow very fast in the amazon.

and supposing hereditists are smart by their own lights. then even according to their own model of heritability they have benefited more than others from a congenial environment.

if one twin scores 130 and h^2 = .7, the likelihood his twin will score as high or higher is only 20%. this is just the math, it’s not an experimental fact. a genetic “true score” of 130 would occur only .8% of the time rather than 2.3% of the time.

hereditism is motivated by seeing stupid disgusting people and thinking “that could never be me!”

“hereditism is motivated by seeing stupid disgusting people and thinking ‘that could never be me!'”

“Broader environment again?

no. iq can be the z score for the individual in his immediate society, the society of namibians for example.

it’s so sad.

behavioral “geneticists” and their supporters are just stupid. it’s as simple as that.”

No, while it’s a truism that an individual has an individual score, the heritability of that measure can only refer to a certain environment. In a different environment you will have a different heritability. This is by definition – yet again, you can’t redefine things to make them fit your own misconceptions.

And still no source for you outlandish claims regarding zero heritability (no, a 33 year old article that doesn’t even substantiate your claim isn’t enough); instead new claims that your opponents are stupid and disgusting. I can only conclude that you’re some kind of troll.

Jorge Videla ”the reality is that with some rare exceptions psychological traits are determined by the pair (genes, environment), not by genes alone (like downs syndrome) or by environment alone (a kick in the head), and the function which takes this pair to a given trait or z score or whatever cannot be written as a sum of G and E.”

How can you prove it?
Do not just say and go. So it’s easy. I want examples so I can see what you’re trying to say.

I do not know where or what part you saw and found what we believe most psychological or behavioral traits of human beings are determined by only one gene pair. His accusations are not consistent with the usual thoughts of people who regularly visit this blog.
What we do is to accept a fact that, I believe we should not deny, that the human behavior is primarily determined by genetics .
Understand that as a source but not as an end . It’s like the source of a river . Genetics is the source of this river . The path that the river will take, and its features for sure that will change along the way .
Obviously when you are placed in conditions of extreme stress or long you try to adapt to this reality .
The gene does not determine our behavior over the events that pass , it determines the most probable extent they behave ourselves. In extreme situations , this limit can be overcome in response to very unusual adaptation.
As I told you before and I hope you agree with me in the next comment. By denying the role of genetics as the primary but not definitive source of our actions , you are denying yourself , you are denying our own will , you ‘re comparing an inanimate object that needs the interaction of others. You can not and is not insane to deny that when I talk about genes or genetic I’m talking about the man himself . Each piece of our body is made ​​up of genes.

Jorge Videla ”the model phenotype = h*G+sqrt(1-h^2)*E where h^2 is the heritability is only a linear approximation to a surface. so, like all approximations, it’s only valid within a small region about the center point of genes and environments for the population under study.”

I do not understand these their extremely specific comments about their work. (probably a geneticist). But this does not disqualify me as a debater, especially when it comes to trying to analyze the bigger picture, the central points of the nature v. nurture debate. Most people also do not understand their equations. If you want to be clear, so be didactic. It is not a matter to stoop to explain their thinking is a matter of understanding that most people, even smart, do not work in the subject every day, are not experts.

Jorge Videla ”two examples of this are the failure of europeans to colonize africa in the topics…their animals and plants died, and the failure of the american billionaire ludwig’s pulp farm in brazil. he selected a fast growing tree from asia. it didn’t grow very fast in the amazon.”

I could understand your example (if poorly understand the comment that made you give this example) and when no there’s no a fit between the environment (natural environment) and genes, there is no possibility of getting any success.
Now, I’m not a farmer, so I want examples of people, please, in order to rebut, after all, human beings are not so identical to plants.

“hereditism is motivated by seeing stupid disgusting people and thinking ‘that could never be me!’”

His nickname is interesting. Hispanic? Spanish?
Yeah, look, I did not tell you this, but I for example, can never be like the mason working on a project near here. It’s called individuality. People can not be like the others understand?

not by “one gene pair” gottlieb, by the pair of the entire genome with the environment. that is, different genomes respond differently to the same environment.

why should it be that everyone responds in the same direction and with the same magnitude to any environmental change? it seems more likely to me that a change in environment will also affect the order, rank, etc. of the population.

one certainly sees this with the eastern european jews in america. and there’s not a jew in my family tree. one also sees this with caribbean blacks in america. they do much better than the natives. so much better it can’t be explained by the self selection of immigrants.

i AM a genetic determinist, but what one’s genes determine DEPENDS on his environment. genes by themselves usually determine nothing. environment by itself usually determines nothing

and example: the largest cactus in the world, the saguaro, cannot grow in cold damp places at all.

Jorge Vidella ” different genomes respond differently to the same environment.”

:P , course.
I understood that genes in the plural, is the collective of genes, is virtually the same as the word genome. I’m far from an expert in genetics, but please, no need to be rude.

Jorge Vidella ”why should it be that everyone responds in the same direction and with the same magnitude to any environmental change? it seems more likely to me that a change in environment will also affect the order, rank, etc. of the population.”

If you specify, please. Give examples. It’s a great way to explain your point, especially in this part of your comment.

Jorge Vidella ”one certainly sees this with the eastern european jews in america. and there’s not a jew in my family tree. one also sees this with caribbean blacks in america. they do much better than the natives. so much better it can’t be explained by the self selection of immigrants.”

Socially and economically rich and stable environments , can take full advantage both individually as collectively. I do not doubt it , and it’s probably true . It is when the iq phenotype is replaced by iq genotype. However , the Caribbeans generally do well at or above their exploitation in their homeland (which they built themselves ) , but not at the same level as white people do. For start , the whites were responsible for the extremely positive environments for personal and collective development of humanity through their societies . I do not doubt that there are capable people in the Caribbean peoples , but because of a series of progressive chronologically events , the white people were better at increasing the amount of the smartest people . The rise of smart people in a gene pool favors the introduction of these phenotypes by increasing the average intelligence between them .
His claims are unweighted and not based on a careful analysis of the studies especially in the case of the Jews . Besides the fact that especially in certain waves of Ashkenazi immigrants, were the most intelligent who immigrated to the U.S. , one should also take into account the nature of this own bio – cognitive group that is particularly distinct and very interesting and even a Jew median Ashkenazim still be a lot clever than most others.
It’s like in the case of Mongolia . The literature of iq tests around the world observed mean IQ between 98-100 for the Mongols . However , a number of environmental (or indirectly genetic ) factors corroborated consistently to reduce the social and economic outcomes of this nation .
It is likely that the Mongols immigrants are doing well in Western societies , much more than in their nation .
I see this in many leftoids , I do not know how or why but they always use extremely shallow arguments to speak highly complex things . They come in very shallow assumptions of the subject feeling that it be able to support your points .
You must prove your theory that ” self ” selection of immigrants is not the best explanation to prove your point. I can agree that the case may be , may be not only that, but it is much more complex and this idea did not bear evidence , so other ideas of biological nature are the most likely to replace it . What you must understand is that there are several other explanations that are not environmental factors that together with the specific selection , can help us understand the situation .
Another factor that you are not taking into consideration is the time factor . I know that Caribbean populations are quite exogamic and is very common Caribbean men marry white women .
Populations, particularly immigrant populations change all the time. Just look for example how Irish immigrants have spread like lightning across the USA from 1850 to 1950.
The U.S. is a huge country, Europe as a whole. Micro-selections happen everywhere in this country. Anyway, what I can tell you is that a debate, especially that speaks of human biology, can not be centered on only two arguments. There is a universe of factors that you can not ignore and over half of them will be on genetic or genomic predominance, if desired.
I’m starting to understand what you mean. However, their examples of Caribbean immigrants and Ashkenazim seem to show me you’re not getting to understand what you’re really trying to tell us.
Again, seek not only by two antagonistic arguments, to debate, because there are many others that should be taken into account.
His theory may serve to animals and plants but do not believe that works for humans, if we are extremely adaptable.
I think the weather may have some effect on SOME PEOPLE OR TYPES OF COGNITIVE STYLES. But we know there are exceptions that do not prove that human genetics is immediately influenced by the environment, its spectral environment concept. Take the case of the chineses in Singapore.
I believe you’re confusing things, the adaptation processes occur mainly by groups rather than by individuals. When we say that an animal has adapted to climate change in your niche, we mean that selective pressures have favored the most adaptable subgroups and not that animals have developed skills to survive. That depends, the more complex species, more creative will be. The objective human creativity is basically our ability to adapt to the level of the individual and not groups.

His theory can serve certain human subgroups, which are more influenced by environmental weathering. I call them mutant branch of the human species. There needs to be a sensitive population to the environment so you can capture the potential advantages of group and spread them through the rest of the population. That’s what probably happened with psychiatric conditions in our evolutionary past.

It may be that heterozygous carriers of psychiatric conditions, for example, function as adaptive emulators certain traits or conditions that are present in recessive homozygous populations. I do not know how to explain how this mechanism should work, perhaps for mating selection.
Changes in the pattern of mating within a single population may also cause substantial changes in behavior and cognitive style.

And in another article of his I can’t find he says what I already knew. In the US the blacks attending Harvard and other elite unis who aren’t athletes are overwhelmingly immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa. Yet they’re more black than American blacks.

And contemporary sub-Saharan Africans score as high as Europeans did 100 years ago. If anything this suggests they have more potential.

And Barbados and the Bahamas are 90%+ black and are fairly rich countries. Barbados has the lowest birth rate in the New World.

I do not believe a priori that human varieties have the same distributions of any and every psychological trait…whatever a psychological trait is independent of a particular society in a particular time and place.

I do believe that psychology is a pseudo-science, and that the real reason for university departments of psychology is that they grant degrees to people too dumb to earn degrees in “real” subjects.

Following the article by Unz (who has a Jewish mother) it is now indisputable that elite American universities discriminate in favor of Jews and against white gentiles. So their success may not be what it appears, just as their “failure” in Eastern Europe was not what it appeared.

I also have the impression that both women and black gay men are more intelligent than heterosexual black men.The Sub-Saharan pattern of intelligence seems to be the reverse, where women seem to be more intelligent, even at the highest levels. It is noteworthy, however, that not always when the bell curve has a greater amount of extremes, the two extremes should be represented. It may happen, as I think happens to black women, that only one end of the bell curve is most represented. It may also happen that extreme, blacks with IQ above 140 is so low that even the rare extreme low intelligence will also be found, particularly for black women.

Jorge Vidella ”And in another article of his I can’t find he says what I already knew. In the US the blacks attending Harvard and other elite unis who aren’t athletes are overwhelmingly immigrants from the Caribbean or Africa. Yet they’re more black than American blacks.”

This is an internal bias on his part, ) where the purest blacks must necessarily be less intelligent than the mulattoes. And if I said that especially in the case of SSA, where a passage to the U.S. is extremely expensive for its standard of living, the selection for those with larger financial condition and therefore more intelligent than the average is just a very logical imperative of socio-economic reality of these nations.
as well as patterns of migration to distant and rich countries… (exception to China)

Jorge Vidella ”And contemporary sub-Saharan Africans score as high as Europeans did 100 years ago. If anything this suggests they have more potential.”

Hollywood movies suggest. ;)

Jorge Vidella ”And Barbados and the Bahamas are 90%+ black and are fairly rich countries. Barbados has the lowest birth rate in the New World.”

Boy, you need to inform yourself better. These two countries have a white, Indian, mulatto, and Chinese (increasingly) elite, are sparsely populated with tiny territories, are also tax havens, much of their earnings come from the luxury tourism and belong to the Commonwealth of Nations . It is relatively easy to administer countries of this size. The fact is that no country with a black majority, with over 10 million inhabitants that exhibits minimal quality of life for its population. It measures the ability of a people justly for super nations with large populations and territories.

Jorge Vidella ”I do not believe a priori that human varieties have the same distributions of any and every psychological trait…whatever a psychological trait is independent of a particular society in a particular time and place.”

I agree with you about it. There is a tendency to universalize all human traits, but I am of the opinion that a personality trait is primarily being influenced by others. I think the approach should phenotypes from personality traits and not only.
For example, the trait openness to experience may be commonly found in both psychopaths as highly empathetic liberal whites (especially minorities).
Ok, openness to experience is a universal concept, but it does not work alone and depending on their combinations, they can and will have different behavioral outcomes.

Jorge Vidella ”I do believe that psychology is a pseudo-science, and that the real reason for university departments of psychology is that they grant degrees to people too dumb to earn degrees in “real” subjects.”

I do not agree, psychology derives from the will of human beings to understand, self-knowledge. Therefore, the fundamental concept of psychology is valid, which is not valid are the ramifications of various subjective natures that this implied. Psychology is used to meet the contextual, subjective and therefore not objective and not scientific demands. But there are many good people and that is what should be done within psychology.
Their observations corroborate mine, where technically smart, perfect for the system, superficial and pragmatic memorisers are selected at the expense of problem solvers, precisely because the Communists plan to throw us into chaos so they can appear as our saviors, everything is planned. They do not want solvers, they want memorisers that can sustain minimal modern infra structure.

Jorge Vidella ”Following the article by Unz (who has a Jewish mother) it is now indisputable that elite American universities discriminate in favor of Jews and against white gentiles. So their success may not be what it appears, just as their “failure” in Eastern Europe was not what it appeared.”

His statements are very brief, I think you need to study this subject a bit more to reach these conclusions. It seems that the exceptionality of Ashkenazi has been observed in different moments in European history and in different nations. I do think that there is nepotism, but uniquely different talents of Ashkenazi explains their over-representation in elite professions. Nepotism increases whatever, this presence by 30%, but even if it had not, yet, they were overrepresented in one way or another.

i agree that barbados and the bahamas are not a model for larger countries, and that they rely on tax avoidance and tourism.

i just meant to point out that economic failure isn’t somehow intrinsic to 90%+ black countries.

and i think you were thinking of T&T when you mentioned east indians and chinese. v s naipaul is from T&T. but T&T is still very black. east indians and chinese are few or none in Barbados and the bahamas.

east indians are the majority in guyana (british guyana) and it’s much poorer than T&T, barbados, and the bahamas.

i’m not a leftoid.

i just mean to show that the issue of racial differences is not nearly as clear or simple as “hbders” suggest. and that, even give their simple view of things, there’s tremendous overlap in ability.

as rushton himself said, black us military officers have higher iqs than white non-officers. and christophe lemaitre is faster than 99.99% of black men.

and, if you haven’t heard, though race or geographic origin is in the genes human genetic diversity is quite small compared to that of other apes, at least.

an abo and a swede are more alike than two chimps in troops living across a river from one another.

in the end the hbd discussion comes down to whether there should be any attempt to correct racial disparities and whether immigration laws should favor some groups, disfavor others.

but even conservatives in the us would agree with the following statement:

when a black, native, african, or caribbean performs at a high level intellectually one has the unmistakeable sense that he must have more innate ability than the whites and asians he matches in performance.

1/3 of black american men have criminal records. i wouldn’t claim a priori that the over-representation of blacks among criminals is entirely due to social/cultural factors, but 1/3 is far too high to be explained by genetic factors imho.

in the us affirmative action benefits the black kid whose dad is a doctor over the poor white kid. this is evil.

but class is more than income. it’s also culture. and i can imagine circumstances where one would choose the black over the white, because in the us there is a separate or dysfunctional black culture and there is de facto segregation, so if all else were seemingly equal one could reasonably think that the black kid had overcome more disadvantages.

at the same time affirmative action is just another factor making admissions and hiting decisions opaque, and simple transparent criteria are preferable to complicated, subjective, and opaque criteria.

but the us is doomed as are all multi-ethnic states. america is american after all. it’s fate is that of latin america. the new world is a disaster.

as blivar said, “America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea.”

yet of all european countries the uk has been most keen on losing its ethnic identity, its nation-hood.

Jorge Vidella ”in the end the hbd discussion comes down to whether there should be any attempt to correct racial disparities and whether immigration laws should favor some groups, disfavor others.”

Racial disparities begin within breeds. A small minority of whites really made the Western civilization from the Saints to psychopathic types with adhd that eg risked migrating to the Americas. There is no way to reduce racial disparities because they are innate and because a cognitive psychological trait influence on all others. If eugenics is enforced for blacks, we will have a behaviorally similar to the Ashkenazim, where we have a high percentage of sociopathic types population. (Despite being a bit unlikely to happen because the Ashkenazim are very different from any population that still has the high psychoticism as a trait in common with black people).

Jorge Videll@ )”but even conservatives in the us would agree with the following statement:

when a black, native, african, or caribbean performs at a high level intellectually one has the unmistakeable sense that he must have more innate ability than the whites and asians he matches in performance.”

Totally correct, but so *=*
Do you think we could not find it *=*

Jorge Videll@ ”1/3 of black american men have criminal records. i wouldn’t claim a priori that the over-representation of blacks among criminals is entirely due to social/cultural factors, but 1/3 is far too high to be explained by genetic factors imho.”

Why not *-*

Jorge Videll@ ”but the us is doomed as are all multi-ethnic states. america is american after all. it’s fate is that of latin america. the new world is a disaster.

as blivar said, “America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea.”

yet of all european countries the uk has been most keen on losing its ethnic identity, its nation-hood.”

That is saying is defeatism , deterministic fatalism . Latin America is not destiny , if we do not want . And I do not want the human trash that is Brazil , is exported to anywhere else. Brazil needs to be extinguished as a nation as well as most nations . If a name like England or USA cause so much hatred in people, but especially because of the name , then we should rename the nations and the name to unravel criminal past , is the beginning of the extermination of white guilt .
It is also important to tell people that the white Europeans who enslaved black Africans have died , all of them , and modern white people , overwhelmingly , never enslaved anyone and if they keep the system because of sheer ignorance and laziness . No chronological continuity of a people where the guilt of things that were done 500 years ago should reverberate through space and time forever, first because even the most homogeneous human population will still be composed of individuals , and second that , as I said there there is no real natural (divine and self-made) chronological continuity of people or species . It is the will to exist that has kept the english people unite.

I’ll summarize my thoughts, I have no fucking fault and people are different and this implies many things, objective, such as produce and sustain civilization as subjective as I like dogs and you like cats.